On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:04 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>  
> > Well I would argue that if compatibility (as opposed to
> > familiarity) is our goal, we need to focus on one and only one
> > syntax, JDBC. It doesn't matter our particular bent, JDBC is the
> > one that is in the most use.
>  
> The start of a URI defines the protocol so that the correct protocol
> handler can be used, like http: versus ftp:.  jdbc:postgresql: URIs
> define one protocol on the wire.  Are we talking about a separate
> protocol or the same one, in terms of what happens on the wire?  If
> the same one, I would tend to agree with JD that we can just use the
> existing URI format.  It seems to me that claiming a second protocol
> prefix for the same protocol would only be a good idea if there was
> a "marketing" benefit in doing so.

Good point then it would be something like:

postgresql:ssl/
or
pq:ssl/

?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

In response to

• Re: Should psql support URI syntax? at 2011-04-01 17:04:21 from Kevin Grittner

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-04-01 17:17:26
	Subject: Re: Comments on SQL/Med objects
Previous:	From: Rajasekhar Yakkali	Date: 2011-04-01 17:07:57
	Subject: Re: Postgres 9.1 - Release Theme